Exploring Opportunities for Integrated Mapping and ......1. Continuing to work with the Steering...
Transcript of Exploring Opportunities for Integrated Mapping and ......1. Continuing to work with the Steering...
EXPLORING OPPORTUNITIES FOR INTEGRATED MAPPING AND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT OF RIVERINE AND COASTAL FLOODPLAINS AND WETLANDS
A NATURAL FLOODPLAIN FUNCTIONS ALLIANCE AND WETLAND MAPPING
CONSORTIUM WORKSHOP
HELD ON APRIL 10, 2018
Association of State Floodplain Managers Annual Conference
Phoenix, AZ
June 19, 2018
SIGNIFICANT EVENTS IN 2017
• August 15: EO on Establishing Discipline and Accountability in the
Environmental Review and Permitting Process for Infrastructure
• Repeals FFRMS
• August 25: Hurricane Harvey
• September 10: Hurricane Irma
• September 20: Hurricane Maria
•Wildfires in CA, ID, MT, OR and WA
TMAC & NFIP• FEMA’s Risk Mapping, Assessment and Planning (MAP) Program
• Generally only includes data on elevation, hydrology, infrastructure, hydraulics and
land use for the purpose of informing NFIP rates
• Many small streams in rural areas are not mapped at all
• In VT 80% of streams and rivers not mapped for potential flood risk
• TMAC (Technical Mapping Advisory Council)
• Moving away from 100 yr flood (1% risk) maps to structure-specific risk
• Infers best and highest use of floodplain is development vs natural floodplain
function
• NFIP (National Flood Insurance Program)
• Up for reauthorization
• Reached its $30.4 billion borrowing limit
CHALLENGES & OPPORTUNITIES
• The regulatory environment is different for wetlands (dredge and fill) and floodplains
(hazard mitigation, flood attenuation, property damage) both are regulated and
functions are part
• Mapping and functional assessment techniques are being developed independently
for features that occupy the same or similar geographic space and often interact.
• Assessment tools and functional correlations are being developed for both mapping
needs yet they are not necessarily informing each other.
• Map products are generalizations of reality based on collected data and
presentation. The underlying data and models are often more robust than the final
generalized map product.
• Communication between agencies, regions, users, stakeholders and developers is
often minimal or absent.
• With fiscal realties, partnerships are essential
WETLAND MAPPING AND NWI+
Since the early mid 1990s, the wetland mapping
community has been enhancing wetland data by
adding LLWW descriptors to enhance the
information in the existing wetland classification
standard utilized by the National Wetlands Inventory
by providing information on potential wetland
function.
LLWW descriptors describe:
• landscape position (relation of a wetland to an
adjacent waterbody)
• landform (the physical shape of the wetland)
• water flow path (the direction water flows into and
out of the wetland)
• waterbody type (lake, river, stream, or pond).
Image credit: Earth Economics
Using Maps to Communicate the Benefits of Ecosystem Functions
HEY, WAIT A MINUTE…
Two ad hoc committees facilitated
by ASWM:
• Natural Floodplain Functions
Alliance (NFFA)
• Wetland Mapping Consortium
(WMC)
Let’s Host a Workshop!
• Integrate wetland and riparian geospatial
mapping techniques and data into floodplain
mapping programs
• National classification standard?
• Attain multiple co-benefits, e.g., reduced flood
risk, clean drinking water, wildlife habitat,
recreational open space, etc.
This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-SA
Hey, Wait a Minute…
• Too ambitious for one workshop…
• Expanded to multi-year project
• Year 1: Case For Support
• Tuesday, April 10, 2018
• Tommy Douglas Conference Center, Silver Spring, MD
• Year 2: Technical Barriers, Possibilities, Needs
• Year 3: Program & Policy Changes Needed
CHARGES FOR THE DAY
1) What if functional assessment
efforts were integrated?
2) How can this be achieved?
3) What are the advantages
and disadvantages?
4) How do we address initial
data inventory?
5) How do we incorporate
mapping innovation?
6) How do we fund map/data
maintenance?
7) How can we share methods
and data layers?
8) How do we promote safe,
healthy communities?
CASE STUDIES
Management Implications of Vermont Wetland and
Floodplain Functional Assessment and Mapping:
Mike Kline, Vermont DEC Rivers Program
Functional Assessments in Current Wetland and
Floodplain Mapping: Sinan Abood, U.S. Forest
Service
Contributing to Riparian Area Management Using
Wetland Functional Assessment Data: Andy
Robertson, Saint Mary’s University of Minnesota
Floodplain Mapping for Salmon Habitat Restoration and
Monitoring: Examples from the Pacific Northwest:
Tim Beechie, NOAA Northwest Fisheries Science
Center
From Functions to Ecosystem Services: The Economic Value
of Floodplains and Wetlands: Elliott Campbell,
Maryland DNR
CASE STUDY DISCUSSION: EMERGING THEMES
• Various agencies, groups and academics have been working on pieces of the
puzzle for some time
• Similar collateral spatial data sets are being used for analysis: LiDAR, NHD, C-
CAP, Shoreline, Land Cover, Wetlands, DFIRM, Flood Heights, Stream Gauge
• Models and automated tools are available to generate and analyze new
data RBT, USFS Riparian Toolkit
• Available data being used in new ways to assess and assign functions
• Communication is lacking but essential. Synergies and partnerships are waiting
to be developed
FEDERAL PANEL Federal Panel Summary
• Provided excellent overview of
mapping efforts and available data
• Summarized agency priorities for
coastal and riverine
floodplain/wetland functional
assessment
• Identified how agencies are using their
own data to address agency
mandates
• Outlined plans for future development
including opportunities, challenges and
threats
• Reinforced the need for partnership
efforts at all levels
Panelists: Megan Lang, FWS NWI; Maria
Honeycutt, NOAA; Stephen Aichele, USGS; Luis
Rodriguez, FEMA; Jay Thompson, BLM
BREAK-OUT SESSION – 3 GROUPS:
1) Areas of Overlap and Distinction
2) Key Challenges and Information Gaps
3) Opportunities to Leverage Resources.
Within each group’s assigned topic area, they had to
develop 2-3 bullet points that described:
1) What are the needs based on our discussions?
2) What are some actions that can be taken to address
the needs?
3) What are the challenges?
This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA
AREAS OF OVERLAP AND DISTINCTION
NEEDS
1. Take action to restore and avoid/protect
2. Historical context, current status and future conditions; be realistic
CHALLENGES
1. No one size fits all
2. Don’t have consistent framework for making decisions; regulations don’t work together, and no
decision framework
ACTIONS
1. Specific communication strategy focused on two or three key gaps at all levels
2. Unlikely allies; need to work with new partners: industry, DOT, Chamber of Commerce, etc.
KEY CHALLENGES AND INFORMATION GAPS
NEEDS
1) Consensus on mapping future conditions (CC impacts, stormwater, development,
restoration opportunities)
2) Move beyond the 100 yr- line- show shades of risk (without sacrificing expansion of
areas that are mapped)
CHALLENGES
1) Improved communications to decision makers and end users
2) Standardized methodologies for ecosystem service valuations
ACTIONS
1) Coordinated effort to tell better stories about the benefits of mapping investments
2) Encourage FEMA to allow states to include advanced mapping on flood hazard maps
(i.e., VT including erosion hazard zones on their maps)
This Photo by Unknown Author
is licensed under CC BY-SA
OPPORTUNITIES TO LEVERAGE RESOURCES
NEEDS
1) Hardware and/or hardware alternatives
2) Easy to use on-line data applications based on need or scope. Accessible and downloadable for GIS users.
3) Funding
ACTIONS
1) Leverage what already exists. Expand the utility of tools already being used. Know what you are trying to
achieve.
2) Training and accessibility – YouTube! Make sure the data you have created is known. Communication – story maps
and case studies – provide examples. Videos – video exchange on examples of how data is used.
3) Partnerships
CHALLENGE
1) Communication – make sure created data gets used. – looking for real needs for the data so it gets applied.
2) Continuity issues – data changes, people change. How do you make sure others aren’t re-inventing the wheel.
3) Political environment – accessibility issues. Priorities. Limited resources. Inequity.
4) Challenges with partnerships. Feds – is that part of the mission? Trust.
This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed
under CC BY-SA
FINAL THOUGHTS – COMMON THEMES:
A need for improved communication among professionals, knowledge sharing, tools,
models
Partnerships, likely and unlikely, are critical to provide technical assistance, combine
funding, expertise, etc.
Digital data availability is important (identify who has it, where it is, and how to obtain it)
Continuity of knowledge is key (stop reinventing tools and/or data that is already out
there)
Leverage existing mandates and legislative tools
Clearly articulate use cases to demonstrate success and generate fiscal support
Innovate and embrace technology while bridging the gap
Tie mapping efforts to societal needs, hazards and costs
Embrace social science to tell the story of social significance
Make avoidance a priority
Tools can be complex, but results should be easy to explain
We need to provide clear, consistent, accessible, and consumable messaging about the
benefits and enhanced decision-making tools provided by integrating maps and
providing site specific information about natural floodplain functions and services
Next steps include:
1. Continuing to work with the Steering Committee and others, exploring
opportunities and challenges over the next year, developing webinars,
participating in conference calls and planning the next workshop.
2. Coordinating and attending in-person meetings with agencies such as FEMA,
TMAC, ACOE, DOI, EPA, USGS, Planning Committee members and others to
discuss the opportunities and technical challenges of mapping floodplain functions
and using that data for decision-making.
3. Identifying existing tools that use condition and function (existing or potential) as
an indicator for prioritization of floodplain, riparian and wetland protection
and/or restoration and explore how these tools can be used to inform land use
decisions.
4. Planning for a second workshop in 2019 that will dig deeper into the technical
challenges and opportunities.
5. Planning for a third workshop in 2020 to identify program and policy changes
that need to be made to implement an integrated approach.
THANK YOU TO:
ASFPM Foundation• Doug Plasencia
• Brad Anderson
• Jerry Sparks
Workshop Steering Committee:
• Larry Larson and David Fowler, Association of State Floodplain Managers
• Andy Robertson, Saint Mary’s University of Minnesota
• Eileen Shader, American Rivers
• Jared Saures, Earth Economics
• David Carlton, Dkcarlton & associates
• David Knipe, Indiana DNR
• Mike Kline, Vermont DEQ
• Maria Honeycutt, NOAA
• Megan Lang, US Fish and Wildlife Service
• George Xian, USGSThis Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY
This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-ND
QUESTIONS?
Marla J. Stelk
Assistant Director
Association of State Wetland Managers
207-892-3399